Lecture 1 — Hypocrisy of the Pharisees

^15:1^ Then scribes and Pharisees came to him from Jerusalem, saying: [n. 1283]

^15:2^ Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. [n. 1284]

^15:3^ But he answered and said to them: why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? [n. 1286]

^15:4^ For God said: honor your father and mother: And*: he who will curse father or mother, let him die the death*. [n. 1288]

^15:5^ But you say: whoever will say to father or mother: whatever gift proceeds from me, will profit you, [n. 1291]

^15:6^ and he will not honor his father or his mother, then you have made void the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition. [n. 1293]

^15:7^ Hypocrites, well has Isaiah prophesied of you, saying: [n. 1294]

^15:8^ this people honors me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. [n. 1295]

^15:9^ And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. [n. 1296]

^15:10^ And having called the multitudes to himself, he said to them: hear and understand. [n. 1297]

^15:11^ It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. [n. 1300]

^15:12^ Then his disciples came, and said to him: do you know that the Pharisees, when they heard this saying, were scandalized? [n. 1303]

^15:13^ But he answered and said: every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted, will be rooted up. [n. 1306]

^15:14^ Leave them alone; they are blind and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit. [n. 1308]

^15:15^ And Peter answering, said to him: explain this parable to us. [n. 1310]

^15:16^ But he said: are you also still without understanding? [n. 1312]

^15:17^ Do you not understand, that whatever enters the mouth, goes into the belly, and is cast out in private? [n. 1314]

^15:18^ But the things which proceed forth from the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. [n. 1317]

^15:19^ For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. [n. 1317]

^15:20^ These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. [n. 1317]

1282. Above, the Lord showed the power of his teaching under figures; now he shows its sufficiency.

And he shows it in two ways:

first, because it does not require the observance of the laws;

second, because it is given not only to the one nation of the Jews, but also to the gentiles, at and Jesus went from there and retired to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon (Matt 15:21).

Concerning the first, he does three things:

first, the circumstances of the accusation are touched upon;

second, the accusation;

third, the explanation.

The second is at why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? The third is at for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.

1283. Now, their malice is made worse by three things. First, by the time, because while he was working signs and miracles, these men were working signs of iniquity; hence they were slandering him. Above, you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent (Matt 11:25). It is also made worse by the place, because while the Jews were scattered throughout Israel, yet those who were in Jerusalem were wise, and yet were worse. In the land of the saints he has done wicked things, and he shall not see the glory of the Lord (Isa 26:10). It is also made worse by the condition of the persons, because the scribes, who were more learned, and the Pharisees, who were reputed to be holier, came from among the great. I will go therefore to the great men, and I will speak to them: for they have known the way of the Lord (Jer 5:5).

1284. Then the thing about which they were accusing them is set down: why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? It had been commanded, you shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it (Deut 4:2). Hence when they added traditions, they acted against the law; not because it was unlawful to establish something, but because they commanded that it be observed just as the law of the Lord.

1285. For they do not wash their hands. Here is explained what their traditions are. Yet this is explained more in Mark, for it says there that when they had seen certain of his disciples with common hands, i.e., unwashed, eating bread, they reproached them (Mark 7:2).

And this can be literal, that they did not wash their hands. Why? Because they were so anxious for the word of God that they did not even have time to wash their hands. Hence out of concern for spiritual things, they did not wash themselves in the same way as the Jews, as it is written in Mark, that all the Jews would not eat unless they washed their hands frequently (Mark 7:4). So the disciples did not wash according to their ritual. Hence they understood carnally what is said: wash yourselves, and be clean (Isa 1:16). Hence they understood it literally, washing what was exterior, and not what was interior.

1286. But he answered and said to them. The Lord does two things, for he does not respond by excusing the disciples but by showing that those who would reproach them are unworthy. Above, you hypocrite, first cast the beam out of your own eye (Matt 7:5). It is agreed that to transgress God’s commandment is more grave than to transgress the traditions of men; and therefore, those who transgressed God’s commandments committed a greater offense.

Therefore,

first, he points out that they are transgressors of the law;

second, which commandment they transgress.

1287. He says then, why do you also transgress the commandment of God and do not observe it, for the sake of your tradition? For they, not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God (Rom 10:3). Their tongue, and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty (Isa 3:8).

1288. Then when he says, for God said, he sets down what this commandment is, which is of course about honoring parents. And

first, he sets down the commandment;

second, the punishment,.

1289. Hence he says, for God said: ***‘honor your father and mother’* (Exod 20:12). And one should note that honor is nothing but reverence shown in testimony to virtue. For he shows reverence who supplies whatever things are necessary: hence a man is not only bound to stand up, but also to supply what is needed. Those who fear the Lord, keep his commandments (Sir 2:21). And that such honor is due is clear, because Tobias lent money to Gabelus, which the Lord had commanded. Exodus immediately adds the punishment: that you may be longlived upon the land which the Lord your God will give you (Exod 20:12). Likewise Leviticus (Lev 20:9).

1290. He adds the punishment for transgressors: ***‘he who will curse father or mother, let him die the death.’* And thus by blessing is understood not only that you bless with your mouth, but also that you yourself bestow the blessing; he who curses his father, and mother, his lamp will be put out in the midst of darkness (Prov 20:20).

But since he sets out the incentive on the side of punishment, why did not he set out the reward of obedience? Because men are more terrified by punishment than they would desire a reward; for even a brute is terrified by punishment. For it is known from this that if anyone slanders his father and mother, he is worthy of death; therefore, those who move others to slander them are worthy of death, which is why they are not fit to make accusations. Therefore you are not worthy to accuse them.

1291. But you say; here he touches on how they transgress. And

first, he points this out;

second, he sets out an authority.

And concerning

the first, he points out their own rite;

second, what followed.

1292. But you say: whoever will say to father or mother. This is read in many ways. In one way, as a construction of the perfect, and then it is this way: whoever, i.e., anyone you please, will say, i.e., will be able to say. In another way, as it is imperfect, in this way: whoever will say, supply, keeps the commandment, and is free from punishment.

What is this saying? It is explained in three ways. Rabanus said that a spiritual good should be preferred to a temporal one; for this reason, they said to those who had poor parents that they should say to them: father, let it not displease you if I do not give you the necessary things, because the service which I offer profits you spiritually. But this was not true, according to the Most High approves not the gifts of the wicked (Sir 34:23). And, he who steals any thing from his father, or from his mother: and says, this is no sin, is the partner of a murderer (Prov 28:24). Therefore, if someone has a father, or a mother, and they cannot live without him, he who says to him, go across the sea and enter religion, falls under this judgment.

There is another explanation. Jerome reads it interrogatively, i.e., will it profit you? It says in Leviticus that a foreigner could not take for himself what had been consecrated to the Lord; therefore, they advised children who had poor fathers that they should offer to God (Lev 22:2). And if the fathers wished to be supported by them, they would say to them: if you take something from what I should offer to God, will it profit you? No, but rather it will be unto your condemnation.

Augustine explains it in this way. The Jews said that children, while they were under the father’s guardianship, were bound to him. Hence when children were small, fathers offered on behalf of the children, and that was profitable for them. But when they are of free judgment, then another’s devotion is no use. Hence they said that anyone who can arrive at this state and say to their father, whatever gift proceeds from me, will profit you, was not bound to the father.

1293. But two unfitting things follow from this teaching: one against one’s neighbor, another against the Lord. Against one’s neighbor, because he who speaks in this way and who instructs others in this way does not honor his father. Hence, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents (Rom 1:30). And there follows, they who do such things are worthy of death (Rom 1:32). Likewise, against God; hence he says, you have made void the commandment of God, as though to say, not only have you acted against your neighbor, but you have even made God’s commandment useless for the sake of your tradition.

1294. Hypocrites. Those were called hypocrites in the proper sense who went into the theater and, having one person, imitated another with a mask. Therefore, these men are hypocrites who pretend exteriorly something other than what they have interiorly; hence interiorly they aimed at gain, but exteriorly they moved men to offer to God. Dissemblers and crafty men prove the wrath of God, neither will they cry when they are bound (Job 36:13).

Well has Isaiah prophesied of you. It is in Isaiah that this is written (Isa 39:13).

First, he sets down their duplicity;

second, the uselessness of their service, at ‘and in vain do they worship me.’

1295. He says then, ‘this people honors me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.’ And this is literal, because they honored with lips, but were far away from God in heart, because they did not receive Christ, who came in the name of God. Or in this way: ***‘this people honors me with their lips’*, for what they say, that a man should offer to God, seems to honor God, ***‘but their heart is far from me’*, because they were not aiming at the honor of God, but at greed. Hence to the extent that greed is greater, to that extent charity is less. This is written in Jeremiah, you are near in their mouth, and far from their reins (Jer 12:2).

1296. But is this fiction of any use to them? No, because it does not please the Lord; hence there follows, ***‘and in vain do they worship me.’*

But what is this saying? Fasting is a human teaching, and the canons are human traditions; do those who teach these things worship God without cause? This should be understood to be the case as regards those who teach these things to the prejudice of God’s commandments. I will not level God with man (Job 32:21). We ought to obey God, rather than men (Acts 5:29). Why? Because God cannot be deceived. Offer sacrifice no more in vain (Isa 1:13). And from this we have it that a man should make himself more aware of the transgression of a commandment than of the transgression of an ecclesiastical constitution.

1297. And having called the multitudes to himself, he said to them. Above, the Lord showed that the Pharisees, who were slandering, were unworthy to reproach the disciples because they were more bound up in sins than the disciples; but now, leaving them aside, he instructs others, that what was said above might be fulfilled, **you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to the little ones **(Matt 11:25). And

first, he instructs the crowds;

second, the disciples, at then his disciples came.

And concerning the first, he does two things:

first, he prepares them for listening;

second, he gives his teaching.

The second is at it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man.

1298. One should notice that to hear someone else, attention is required, which calls a man back to interior things, and gathers him together into himself. And he does this, when it says, and having called the multitudes, because we must be gathered together to him; come to him and be enlightened (Ps 33:6). The second thing necessary is diligence in hearing, so he says, **hear; a wise man will hear and will be wiser (Prov 1:5). Also, understanding is required, hence he says, and understand; understand, you senseless among the people: and, you fools, be wise at last (Ps 93:8).

1299. Next, he sets out the highest teaching, which is the perfection of the moral life. Hence, notice that a thing can be changed from the outside, as water is heated by fire, or a thing can be changed from the inside, as a man is changed by sin. For however much he is moved exteriorly, it is not a sin unless a man consents interiorly; out of the inner parts will a tempest come (Job 37:9).

Hence first, he shows that a man is not made unclean by exterior things; second, that he is made unclean by interior things.

1300. He says then, it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man.

Against this is objected what is said by the old law; for it is written in Leviticus that many foods are forbidden, hence men became unclean through them (Lev 11).

Augustine responds, speaking against Faustus, that something is called unclean in two ways. In one way, according to its own nature: and in this way nothing is unclean, according to for every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4). Likewise, something can be unclean according to its signification. And in this way, something can be a sign of uncleanness and of cleanness; just as, if we take a pig and a lamb in their own natures, both are good, yet by its signification the pig signifies uncleanness, and the lamb cleanness. For this reason, as regards signification one is clean, the other unclean. And because before Christ’s coming was the time in which they lived under figures, since the truth was not yet clear, therefore those observances were to be kept, and fell under commandment. But since the truth was manifested in Christ’s coming, the figures ceased.

1301. But again another question remains, because it is written that the apostles commanded that the converts abstain from suffocated animals and from blood (Acts 15:20). Therefore it seems that, with the truth remaining, these observances should be held.

The ancients said that this was to be understood literally, because it was still necessary to abstain from these things, since they were unclean. But this amounts to nothing, because it contradicts the authority of the Apostle: all things are clean to the clean (Titus 1:15). Some said that this was to be understood partly literally, partly morally: for what is said about fornication, that they forbade literally; but what is said about blood should be understood to mean that harmless blood should not be poured out; while what is said about a suffocated animal was to be understood to mean that no one should bring slander on others.

But it should not be understood this way, however true the explanation is. The question discussed was whether the gentile converts were bound to those things which the apostles forbade. Therefore, one must understand it according as was customary with the Jews.

Therefore, one should say otherwise, that the apostles considered something, and forbade it, either because it was unlawful in itself or because it was an occasion of scandal. Hence they forbade fornication as unlawful; but they forbade blood lest they give scandal to others, that is, to remove scandal. And this harmonizes with the words of the Apostle: but take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak (1 Cor 8:9).

Likewise, if it is objected: suppose that someone eats meat in Lent; would he not be defiled? One should say that he would be defiled not by the food, but by the violation of a commandment; for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink (Rom 14:17).

1302. But what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. Here he seems to touch only on the sins which proceed from the mouth, and these defile a man; out of your own mouth I judge you, you wicked servant (Luke 19:22). And above, **for with what judgment you judge, you will be judged **(Matt 7:2).

But one should say that the proper function of the mouth is to speak. Now there are two ways of speaking: exteriorly, with a bodily mouth, and interiorly with the mouth of the mind, about which the Psalm says, the fool has said in his heart: there is no God (Ps 13:1). So in this way, one can understand by ‘mouth’ the mouth of the heart, namely the mind of a man, and thus every sin is from the mouth; because there is never sin except from the mind’s intention. So in this way what comes out of the mouth, namely the heart, this defiles a man, because it is a sin to the degree it is voluntary, because if it is not voluntary, it is not a sin.

1303. Then his disciples came. Here he gives instruction about avoiding scandal, and about the principal question, at and Peter answering.

Concerning the first, two things:

first, the disciples’ question is set down;

second, Christ’s response.

1304. Here one should understand that the Pharisees and the disciples heard this saying, in which they understood that he overturned all their traditions, but they did not hear the Lord’s precepts; so they said nothing, abhorring him, but were disturbed. For this reason, the disciples said, do you know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?

1305. This word ‘scandal’ is found frequently in the Scriptures; hence one should see what it signifies.

In Greek, a scandal is the same thing as a stumbling block, like a rock on the road; hence it is called a stumbling block where there is an occasion of ruin. But sometimes a person scandalizes actively, and sometimes passively. It is called active scandal when it is something done, which is not only bad in itself, but also a stumbling block to others. Therefore a ‘scandal’ names a saying or deed less right which presents the occasion of ruin. And this definition does not say ‘thought,’ because a scandal has to be evident. Likewise, it does not say ‘bad,’ but less right, because it must have the appearance of evil; from all appearance of evil refrain yourselves (1 Thess 5:22). There is also passive scandal, as when someone speaks a good word, or prays, and another is scandalized, but he himself seized the occasion. Hence his disciples said that the Pharisees took scandal from it, and this was foretold by Isaiah: and he will be a sanctification to you. But for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel (Isa 8:14).

1306. But he answered and said. Here the Lord’s response is set down, and he shows that their scandal should be despised:

first, because it is unconnected with God;

second, because it is harmful to men, at leave them alone; they are blind and leaders of the blind.

1307. It says then, but he answered and said: every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted, will be rooted up. From these words, those who posited two natures wished to confirm their error, because they said that a bad nature was created by a bad god, and a good nature by a good god. Hence they say: if someone is of the bad creation, even if he seems to do good things he cannot persevere. But this is not so; for, as Jerome says, the contrary is written in Jeremiah, yet I planted you a chosen vineyard, all true seed: how then are you turned unto me into that which is good for nothing, O strange vineyard? (Jer 2:21). So this is clear, that it is not from God. So it was changed in this way by the plant itself, not by nature; but something is understood as coming over it, and this is corrupted will. Hence the nature always remains, but the corrupted will is rooted up.

Hence this plant can be understood as the tradition of men, which is to be rooted up if it is against God; but the tradition which is from God will never be rooted up. Hence, every plant, i.e., tradition, which is not from God, my Father, will be rooted up. And this is said in Acts by Gamaliel, who said, but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it (Acts 5:39).

This is also clear in all things. You will see some who do good works founded in charity, being rooted and founded in charity (Eph 3:17): and these cannot be rooted up. But others, who do not have a good foundation, as those who give alms on account of vanity, are rooted up; hence, every work that is corruptible will fail in the end: and the worker thereof will go with it (Sir 14:20). Hence it should be understood in this way: the slip of an adulterer will not take deep root, nor any fast foundation (Wis 4:3).

Against this it is written, where Paul says, I have planted, Apollo watered (1 Cor 3:6). Therefore Paul will be rooted up. I say that Paul did not plant as the principal agent, but as a minister.

1308. There follows leave them alone; they are blind. Here he shows that their scandal is to be despised, because it is harmful to men. And first, he teaches that it is to be despised; second, about their presumption; third, about the harm.

Concerning the first: you say that they are scandalized in this way; leave them alone, and do not care.

But should not one care about scandal? Did not the Lord send Peter to the sea, that he might pay the tribute, to avoid scandal?

One should say that scandal sometimes arises from the truth; hence, that scandal should be avoided which can be avoided without prejudice to the truth, to life, to doctrine, or to justice. Hence the judge should not give up judging if someone is scandalized by it. But nevertheless one must distinguish, because some are scandalized out of weakness, and some out of certain malice. The scandal of little ones should be avoided, the truth being preserved; and yet a man can put something off, or mitigate it. But not if it is out of malice: and these Pharisees are scandalized in this way. Hence if they were not scandalized out of malice, the Lord would not have said, leave them alone, but rather, instruct them. It is written: a man who is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid (Titus 3:10); we would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed (Jer 51:9).

1309. And why they are blind? The spiritually blind are those who are ignorant; his watchmen are all blind (Isa 56:10). And because they are so out of certain malice, they are not only blind, but also leaders of the blind, and teachers, for if I have been ignorant, my ignorance will be with me (Job 19:4). The fact that they are leaders of the blind is good; but that they are blind, this is an evil. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit. Hide them in the dust together (Job 40:8), namely as regards the body.

1310. And Peter answering, said to him. He gives instruction here about the principal question.

Here he does three things, for

first, Peter’s question is set down;

second, a rebuke;

third, the teaching.

The second is at but he said: are you also still without understanding? The third, at do you not understand.

1311. And Peter answering, said to him: expound this parable. Peter was accustomed to hear parables from him; therefore he believed that he would speak in a parable; or because Peter was brought up in legal observances, as he said in Acts, far be it from me; for I never did eat anything that is common and unclean (Acts 10:14). For this reason, he believed that he did not speak literally, but in a parable. He will understand a parable, and the interpretation, the words of the wise, and their mysterious sayings (Prov 1:6).

1312. But he said: are you also still without understanding? For the Lord responded to all the disciples in Peter, who spoke for all. Here he reproaches him. But why? One reason, which Jerome sets out, is that what was spoken plainly he thought to be spoken in a parable. For just as he who discloses hidden things should be reproached, so, conversely, he who hides manifest things should be reproached; do not become like the horse and the mule, who have no understanding (Ps 31:9). Another reason is Chrysostom’s, that he seemed to be zealous for the Jews, since he was brought up in the teachings of the law; so he seemed to be saddened by this.

1313. Next, he explains. And

first, he explains what he had said, namely it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man;

second, according to what he had said, namely but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man;

third, he draws the intended conclusion.

1314. He says then, do you not understand, that whatever enters into the mouth, goes into the belly, and is cast out in private? And why does the Lord speak this way? Chrysostom says that he speaks to them as to those familiar with the observances of the law. Now, it was the law’s intention that when food was in the mouth undigested, it was unclean; but when it was digested, it was clean. Hence it always says in the law, he . . . will be unclean until evening. Therefore, let us suppose that these observances should be kept: they still do not render a man unclean, except for a time. Hence what passes on cannot make them unclean. Or in another way. Nothing can make the soul unclean which does not touch it. But food does not touch the soul; and this is the sign: that it goes into the belly, and is cast out in private.

1315. But, as Jerome says, some object against this, saying that the Lord was ignorant of natural science, because the whole of the food is not cast out.

Hence certain men, wishing to understand it in this way, that the whole is cast out, would have it that nothing is changed into human nature, but what is received from Adam is simply multiplied, and this will rise at the last day. Hence what is from food, according to them, will not rise. Hence also craftsmen put lead with gold, that the lead may be consumed, and the gold preserved. In this way, foods provide resistance, lest the natural heat consume that which is from the power of nature.

But this seems impossible, because nothing can become greater except through rarefaction, because to be rarefied is nothing else than to take on a greater quantity. Also, man has the sensitive and nutritive powers in common with the animals, and the vegetative power in common with plants. But it is in this way that these grow and are nourished by nourishment.

1316. So why does he say that it is cast out in private?

Jerome says that it is not understood only as unclean excess, but rather however it comes about, whether through excrement, or in some other way. And this is also in accord with the Philosopher, because although it remains according to species, yet according to matter it flows on, just as a fire remains in species, but the matter is consumed.

It can also be said this way: whatever enters into the mouth, goes into the belly, something of it: hence sometimes in the Scriptures, the whole is taken for the part.

1317. But the things which proceed forth from the mouth: it was already said that by the mouth is understood the mind. Come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man, because the sins of the heart are thoughts and affections; take away the evil of your devices from my eyes (Isa 1:16). He also sets down the sins which are against the commandments of the second tablet: murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts. Likewise, the sins of the mouth against neighbor: false testimonies. Blasphemies, against the commandments of the first tablet. Hence, these are the things that defile a man, because these come forth from the mind.

1318. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Here he concludes, and sets out this conclusion, to respond to the principal intention. Also, since the disciples did not understand, he concludes that he spoke only against tradition.